In 2010, the Huffington Post compiled a list of 鈥�.鈥� The chart included the following zingers:
Freedom by Jonathan Franzen
鈥淭he novel is a 576-page monument to insignificance. Franzen uses facile tricks to tart up the story as a total account of American life.鈥� (B.R. Meyers, The Atlantic, 2010).
Extremely Loud And Incredibly Close by Jonathan Safran Foer
鈥淔oer isn鈥檛 just a bad author, he’s a vile one. Why wait to have ideas worth writing when you can grab a big theme, throw in the kitchen sink, and wear your flip-flops all the way to the bank? How could someone so willfully young be so unambitious?鈥� (Harry Siegel, NYPress, 2005).
The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo by Stieg Larsson
鈥淭his is easily one of the worst books I鈥檝e ever read. And bear in mind that I鈥檝e read John Grisham.鈥� (Susan Cohen, Charleston City Paper, 2008).
These reviews aren鈥檛 just negative鈥攖hey veer into the realm of meanness, or what I like to call snark. More than a critical appraisal, snark adds a layer of moral judgment. Keep in mind that the pull quotes aren鈥檛 even taken out of context鈥擲iegel鈥檚 review of Extremely Loud And Incredibly Close is entitled 鈥淓xtremely Cloying & Incredibly False.鈥� The result is not just criticism, but a negative comment with a derogatory鈥攅ven devastating鈥攓uality. And, obviously, it鈥檚 funny too (unless you鈥檙e the author).
Snark is always compelling, and probably the reason why outlets like HuffPo compile such lists. Indeed, as part of the marketing and publicity of my own book, Inside the Critics鈥� Circle, I was invited to, and complied, with creating yet another of these lists for .
While critics do not use the term 鈥渟nark,鈥� it鈥檚 a familiar concept, even if it鈥檚 tricky to define. Just as Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously described his threshold test for obscenity, one knows snark 鈥榳hen they see it.鈥� Drawing on interviews for my book that I conducted with critics from influential review outlets, I鈥檝e come up with a working definition.
The distinction between a negative review and a snarky one is ultimately subjective. But in critics鈥� vernacular, reviews that 鈥済o there鈥� are known as 鈥渉atchet jobs鈥� or 鈥渢akedowns.鈥� When I asked critics how they differentiated between a critical review and a 鈥渕ean鈥� one, they pointed to the reviewer trying to 鈥�score points off a failure by making himself [sic] look more clever or witty, or sharp, or talented in their own writing of the review.鈥� But what is there to gain from mockery?
It all comes down to perception. Critics are writers, after all, and they might want to flex their muscles. Snark is about much more than communicating frustration鈥攆or instance, having to spend many hours reading a bad book and reviewing it for a modest fee. Rather, the critics I spoke to theorized that a key perceived intention is self-aggrandizement, through wit and cleverness.
Snark in reviewing manifests itself in at least three ways:
- Many reviewers admit to being guilty consumers of snarky reviews. Like a car accident, snarky reviews turn heads.
- Receiving a negative and/or snarky review is a shared experience鈥攎any reviewers have been targets, if they鈥檙e authors themselves.
- Reviewers confess to being the perpetrators of snark鈥攕ome at the start of their writing careers, and others when they encounter circumstances when it feels unnecessary to pull punches.
So what are these circumstances, and why do reviewers choose not to hold back? For some critics, writing snarky reviews is tantamount to an act of social justice, especially if the target is a commercially-successful author. The logic for many critics is that famous authors don鈥檛 deserve review attention simply because they are famous鈥攐ften, they pull focus from another author who deserves the attention more, in a shrinking review landscape.
Even though critics don鈥檛 get to decide which books get reviewed鈥攖hat鈥檚 up to the editors鈥攖hey do get to choose the content of the reviews that they write. If they must review an inferior book by a famous author, it鈥檚 their responsibility to call them out. A form of poetic justice, served in 1000 words or fewer.
Phillipa K. Chong is assistant professor of sociology at McMaster University. Twitter @ChongSOC